In new CBA, players don't want courts involved

Posted on: March 28, 2011 9:53 am

Posted by Josh Katzowitz

If there’s anything on which the NFL owners won’t compromise during labor negotiations, assuming they and the NFLPA actually get back to the bargaining table, it’s the agreement in past CBAs for federal court oversight. Basically, the owners want that provision stricken from any future CBAs.

It’s been well-documented that the owners have a problem with U.S. Circuit Court Judge David Doty. Though Doty – who the owners believe has favored the players for the past two decades whenever he’s heard appeals from the two sides – won’t be the one hearing the April 6 injunction hearing in the Brady v NFL case, the owners want to get away from the courts altogether.

You hear that just about every day when commissioner Roger Goodell or some other owner says the only way to end the NFL lockout is to return to the negotiating table and forgo litigating. Now, the owners want to make it a reality.

Said one of King’s sources: "They don't want to leave their fate in the hands of a judge, period. After having the last two decades, basically, with federal oversight in the Eighth Circuit, their attitude basically is this: No other leagues have the courts lording over them. Why should we?''

According to King, the players might be OK with letting go of that provision in the next CBA, because the issue so rarely comes into play.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.

In new CBA, players don't want courts involved

Your own blog web page pretty engaging. I'm also caring every last for all the a lot of knowledge you're swapping with lots many people!

hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011

Posted on: December 7, 2011 9:18 am

This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Dec 2, 2011

Posted on: December 5, 2011 9:52 am

In new CBA, players don't want courts involved

Commonly I will indicates page entirely on blogging, yet I would like to say that this one thread actually obligated me personally to perform which means that. The fact is remarkable release!

Since: Jan 31, 2011

Posted on: March 30, 2011 2:35 pm

In new CBA, players don't want courts involved

The judge hasn't thrown the case out because individual players--suing as a Class--have a legitimate gripe and have standing to sue the party they are suing. Why is that concept so difficult to get?In order for there to be a claim of anti-trust, there cannot be a NFLPA. They might of said on paper that they have "decertified" but they are obviously still acting as a organization. And--if your reasoning is valid--the owners have promised on paper they would not collude or work together without union agreement to fix wages, rules, etc. That is why they get an anti-trust law exemption; they are a monopoly in reality, but on paper--not so much.Same thing with the players. As individuals they can say, recommend, or try to get future players to do whatever they want. You seem to be working under the assumption the players want a union. They would love nothing more than for the judge to say the NFL is--as the courts ruled last year--32 separate entities. That would mean no fixed salaries, no cap, no floor--and guaranteed contracts. Manning and Brady would be playing in Dallas and Washington and Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Cincy, Jax would never sniff a Super Bowl.The NFLPA, right now, cannot bargain for anyone. The counsel for owners and the class of players would do the "negotiating." De Smith, of course, would "consult" but not bargain for any organized entity.Of course, you're right, it's all BS. But the owners shovel just as much as the players.They meerly "decertified" on paper to give them more leverage against the owners. If that doesn't wreak of questionable practices what does. To me it shows they never had any intent on negotiating and had planned to decertify from the beginning hoping the courts would force the owners hands.Dude, this is a high stakes game. The owners opted out of the CBA 2 years early. It was their right. It is the players' right to opt for court. One side or the other will have more leverage after the judge rules. That side will squeeze the other until they submit. Even more its like a slap in the face to every union guy out there, especially the ones who came before you and had to do a lot to even have a union.I agree. But, if fans like you and me would back up their talk and boycott games for a year, never buy a 12 dollar hotdog, 8 dollar beer, or 39 dollar T- Shirt, prices would go down, and, if we kept it up, player salaries and owners' profits would go down.Do you think that will ever happen?We get what we deserve, bro.deepintosports.com

Since: Mar 19, 2007

Posted on: March 29, 2011 9:54 am

In new CBA, players don't want courts involved

Why hasn't this judge thrown this case out?

In order for there to be a claim of anti-trust, there cannot be a NFLPA. They might of said on paper that they have "decertified" but they are obviously still acting as a organization. I mean they have an itinerary for draft weekend, they tried to convince rookies to not attend the draft, nothing has changed for the NFLPA at all. They meerly "decertified" on paper to give them more leverage against the owners. If that doesn't wreak of questionable practices what does. To me it shows they never had any intent on negotiating and had planned to decertify from the beginning hoping the courts would force the owners hands. Even more its like a slap in the face to every union guy out there, especially the ones who came before you and had to do a lot to even have a union.

Since: Aug 21, 2006

Posted on: March 28, 2011 1:17 pm

In new CBA, players don't want courts involved

if it's something the owners are pushing for you can be damn sure Maurice and his boys will oppose it.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com